Darkson wrote:But your playstyle may not suit everyone - I'd never recommend taking a RO in a Skaven team for example, because I've had much better results without one than when I took one, but I know most people think that's mad.
The Gospel according to Garion is not the only view.
And how is this new player you're so concerned about supposed to know your way (in your opinion) is better than anyone elses?
Firstly - that's not my playstyle. I intentionally use sub optimal teams and team builds. However when offering advice I will continue to offer the best (in terms of getting the most bang for your buck) advice. Its just risk management which is strategically what the game boils down to as I said before, and it extents to roster creation, skill choices when to hire players and so on. Managing probability and risk management isn't just on the field of play
Now something like a Rat Ogre is certainly open for debate, I would side with you on this one, as he is imo overpriced and superfluous. He add too much unreliability and is very squishy, plus wild animals are pretty easy to take out of a drive and I could go on. But he does add strengths for sure.
Things like taking all 3 big guys on a pact starting roster, aren't really open for debate in the same way. Yes it can be fun, but it is sub optimal for a variety of reasons. Choosing between an ogre or troll, or taking 2 big guys can be argued sensibly. But anyone claiming 3 big guys is the optimal way to play chaos Pact, as in the greatest chance of winning, is frankly way off. Sure you can win like that, and sure people probably have, but its not the optimal strategy in terms of risk management and cost effective play.
Newer coaches certainly don't have to listen to me, but I'm just putting it out there as advice. They can take it or leave it, but without solid advice based on risk management all there would be on this forum is people saying silly stuff like Sneaky Git is awesome, and I always give pass block to 2 players.